| Message ID | 20240729084715.1736839-2-yangerkun@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/2] generic/732: remove unused code | expand |
Looks good:
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: > > Looks good: > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> > I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs. tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732 failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list -- it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to reappear. -- Chuck Lever
> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> Looks good: >> >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> >> > > I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs. > > tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732 > failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list -- > it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to > reappear. Never mind. Christoph, you deleted the context for this, and the Subject: was one character different than the one for generic/736. Even properly dosed on caffeine I missed that. -- Chuck Lever
在 2024/7/29 22:21, Chuck Lever III 写道: > > >> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: >> >> Looks good: >> >> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> >> > > I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs. > > tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732 > failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list -- > it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to > reappear. The reason why I thinks it should not run for tmpfs is that the same mount options won't share the same sb. I prefer it's a expected behavior... > > > -- > Chuck Lever > >
在 2024/7/29 22:24, Chuck Lever III 写道: > > >> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:21 AM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Jul 29, 2024, at 10:16 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote: >>> >>> Looks good: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> >>> >> >> I would prefer this test continue to run on tmpfs. >> >> tmpfs is broken, and needs to be fixed. If the generic/732 >> failure is an issue, then add it to the expunge list -- >> it found a real bug, that, once fixed, we don't want to >> reappear. > > Never mind. > > Christoph, you deleted the context for this, and the > Subject: was one character different than the one for > generic/736. Even properly dosed on caffeine I missed > that. Aha, got it. > > -- > Chuck Lever > >
diff --git a/tests/generic/732 b/tests/generic/732 index d8475cda..d08028c2 100755 --- a/tests/generic/732 +++ b/tests/generic/732 @@ -21,7 +21,10 @@ _cleanup() rm -r -f $tmp.* } -_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay +# This case give a assumption that the same mount options for +# different mount point will share the same superblock, which won't +# sucess for the follow fs. +_supported_fs ^nfs ^overlay ^tmpfs _require_test _require_scratch
Like what 4fd042e0465c("generic/732: don't run it on NFS") say, the same options for tmpfs won't share the same backend. Skip it for tmpfs. Besides, add some explanation for why we should skip tmpfs. Signed-off-by: Yang Erkun <yangerkun@huawei.com> --- tests/generic/732 | 5 ++++- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)